Sunday, May 8, 2011

As much as it's a religion, Islam is also a political ideology that has deeply influenced Muslim-Muslim and Muslim-Non-Muslim relationships in the Subcontinent, as also the entire Pakistani society.

'Uniformity or Diversity' is one of the eight issues identified by Sehar Tariq, a public policy expert working with Jinnah Institute, a progressive think-tank of Pakistani origin, as confronting the education system in her country.

In a paper titled 'Pakistan's Eight Great Education Debates,' which was published in April 2011 in the wake of the government declaring an “education emergency,” Tariq says: “Pakistan’s education system and syllabi were carefully crafted to promote a sense of unity and nationhood derived from a common Muslim identity.

Ironically, while trying to develop a sense of united nationhood through an imposed and imagined sense of religious unity, the Pakistani syllabus has ignored and failed to celebrate the religious and ethnic differences in the country.

This short sighted policy has resulted in a deeply divided state rather than a united one. Sectarian and ethnic tensions have been on the rise and often resulted in violent clashes.”

The paper (http://www.jinnah-institute.org/images/ji%20education%20policy%20brief.pdf ) also cites a 2004 survey that canvassed the views of the pupils belonging to three types of schools in Pakistan -- madrasas, Urdu medium schools, and English medium schools -- on issues of tolerance and diversity.

The survey revealed that more pupils from madrasas and Urdu medium schools condoned violence and war and disapproved of equal rights for minorities than students from the English medium schools.

For example, only 17 per cent of the madrasa pupils said ‘yes’ to ‘equal rights to Hindus’; that ratio went up to 47 per cent in the case of pupils belonging to Urdu medium schools and as high as 78 per cent in the case of English medium schools.

A mere 13 per cent of Madrasa pupils approved ‘equal rights for Ahmedis’. That ratio went up dramatically to 47 per cent in the case of Urdu medium schools and an even better 66 per cent in the case of English medium schools.

Fifty three percent of the madrasa pupils supported the 'use of Jihadi groups in Kashmir'; that ratio went down to 33 per cent in the case of Urdu medium schools and 22 per cent in the case of English medium schools.

I found this debate on ‘Uniformity or Diversity’ in the education system of Pakistan interesting enough to write an email, reproduced below, to Sehar Tariq, the author of the paper.

The gist of the email is my belief that the political core of Islamic faith has played its part in not only encouraging separatism among Muslims of the sub-continent, the creation of Pakistan, and the weakening of secular values, but also radicalisation of Pakistani society and internal strife in that country.

The larger point is that the mainstream debate in the Subcontinent on Muslim-Non-Muslim relations, separatism and communalism has not been dealing head on with the political ideology of Islam, as also the political aspects of other religions, perhaps because of the so called “sensitivities” involved.

Most of the debates on Muslim-Non-Muslim relations in other countries, as well as in the global context, seem to have been similarly pusillanimous.

In contrast, some of the same debates in cyberspace are much bolder and more informed.

(There is now a very large amount of information on the Web for non-Muslims to make sense of Islam.

The political aspects of Islam include some of the teachings of the Qur’an, the contrast between Meccan and Medinan Surahs, the Sunna, the Muslim history, the institutions of Caliphate and Imamate, the importance of following Sharia or Islamic law, etc.)

--------

Dear Sehar

I read about your paper ‘Pakistan’s Eight Great Education Debates’ and skimmed through its summary on JI website.

Here are some thoughts on ‘Uniformity or Diversity?’

It’s interesting to an Indian observer like me that uniformity/diversity is a serious issue confronting Pakistan, an overwhelmingly Muslim country. A serious issue despite the fact that Islam seeks to exert a sweeping influence on all aspects of human life -- religious, social, cultural and political -- and emphasizes Muslim unity.

Since all education flows from our social, cultural and political values, Pakistani educationists will always have to deal with Islam and Islam-influenced social, cultural and political values in arriving at a coherent educational philosophy for the entire country.

(That will also involve the problem of the right interpretation of Islam.)

My understanding of Islam is that as much as it is a religion, it is also a political ideology that has a very conscious and deliberate differentiation between Muslims and non-Muslims -- ‘us’ and ‘them’ -- which has been reinforced through the history of Islam in Muslims' relationships with the people belonging to other religions and spiritual traditions.

The political ideology of Islam is evident in its concept of nationhood (‘Ummah’), which is very different from the idea of a secular nation in western thought, and in its intermingling of religion and state.

The distinctly political side -- or perhaps the ‘core’ -- of Islam is also evident in the fact that Muslims from the time of Prophet Muhammad have greatly valued the efforts (which, I believe, include waging wars) to spread their religion, expand its territory, and influence the local cultures, languages, etc.

In other words, Islam comes across as more political than other religions and spiritual traditions, even though all religions and spiritual traditions have their political side too.

(For example, the great variety of religious and spiritual traditions of India which are subsumed under the term ‘Hinduism’ --- a misnomer because there is no single ‘ism’ or faith that peoples who are supposed to belong to ‘Hinduism’ adhere to --- also have their political sides, but quite unlike Islam’s.)

Of late, I have read some material on the Web that suggests that Islam’s inherently political elements --- particularly its sharp differentiation between Muslim and non-Muslim, its mention of ‘jihad’ (whose interpretation has invariably veered towards violence and war), and its history of substantial Muslim-Muslim and Muslim-Non-Muslim violence --- have made Muslim societies permanently ill-disposed towards peace, stability and modernity.

I believe that the political-ideological core of Islam has played its part in encouraging separatism among Muslims of the sub-continent, the creation of Pakistan, and the weakening of secular values.

This political-ideological core, I suspect, may also have been contributing to radicalisation of Pakistani society and internal strife in the country.

It seems at this juncture of history that the artificial and violent segregation of Muslims and Hindus at the time of Partition robbed the Muslims on the Pakistani side of some of the tolerant characteristics of their composite culture and deprived them of an opportunity to continue to develop a culture of tolerance and secularism while they lived with the Hindus.

The loss for the people on the Indian side was much smaller because here Hindus and Muslims, as also people belonging to other religious and spiritual traditions, have continued to live side by side, peacefully for most of the time.

I wonder whether or not the modernists and liberals in Pakistan trace some of the problems of their society to the political core of Islam and whether or not they believe that the political core of Islam encouraged separatism among the Muslims of the subcontinent and then contributed to the strife in Pakistani society.

I also wonder whether or not an educationist like you will find something to agree with the view that building a modern, liberal and democratic education system in Pakistan will require dealing with some of the problems that could be traced to the political core of Islam.

I wish you and Pakistan all the very best and would like to see the Pakistani society moving towards tolerance, peace and democracy.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Here is an explanation of Jan Lokpal – its meaning and rationale – and dispelling some of the misconceptions about the Bill drafted by India Against Corruption.

‘Lokpal’ is a compound word (Lok + Pal) in Hindi which approximately translates into English as ‘people’s patron’.
The word ‘Lokpal’ shares ‘Lok’ (meaning ‘people’) with ‘Lok-tantra,’ another Hindi word, which means ‘democracy.’
‘Lokpal’ thus conveys the meaning of a person or institution that protects the interests of the citizens, including those who are the most disadvantaged, and is fully accountable to them.
‘Lokpal’ has been aptly chosen as the name for a commission that will be set up to work on behalf of the people of India to protect their interests from abuse of public office at the level of the central government.
To be established through the enactment of a law by the Parliament, the Lokpal commission will help to curb, reduce and prevent ‘corruption,’ as defined in law, in all activities of the central government with a few exceptions.
It will help to bring to justice public servants, including ministers and senior bureaucrats, who engage in ‘corruption,’ as defined in law, and protect citizens who show the courage to bring to the notice of the authorities any instance of abuse of public office.
The Lokpal commission will also deal with certain kinds of grievances reported by the citizens in respect of any service or office of the central government and provide them redress.
Thus, Lokpal will be a democratic institution that will help to make public service fair, open and accountable to the citizens.
The Lokpal commission is not meant to be a panacea for all forms of ‘corruption,’ in its broadly defined sense of moral decay or deficit, which we experience in various institutions, but one of the several reforms that we need to carry out in order for the State to meet the citizens’ expectations.

Growing corruption, failing systemsIn recent years, there has been a groundswell of public opinion in favour of the view that corruption at all levels of the government – central, state and local – has reached unsustainable levels.
This view is not only borne out by the large scale and frequency of scams perpetrated by the elected and unelected public servants (and reported by the media), but also by the day-to-day experience of the ordinary people, including the poorest who need public services more than anyone else.
Rise in corruption is thus reflected not only in the amount of public funds siphoned off, usually with impunity, but also in poor or absent public services, worsening standard of living of the ordinary citizens, growing poverty and disparities in income and wealth, rising crime graph, and several other social and economic parameters.
Corruption also erodes the rule of law, democratic accountability, and the legitimacy of the State in the eyes of the citizens.
How have our systems of curbing corruption been responding to this perceived upsurge in corruption and its gargantuan social and economic costs?
‘Very poorly,’ will have to be the answer.
For instance, the rate of conviction achieved by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which investigates cases of corruption at higher levels of the central government, was 62 per cent in the year 2009, a drop of about five percent from the previous year.
What that means is that 38 of the 100 public servants booked for corruption by the CBI were acquitted in 2009. The CBI fared worse in cases where the officials had not been arrested red-handed.
There is hardly anything impressive even about the 62 per cent conviction rate if you consider that the CBI is almost never able to book, let alone prosecute, ministers and the senior-most officials especially protected by those ministers.
So, the 62 officials convicted out of the 100 booked in 2009 were likely to have been relatively low-level officials who were mere tools in the hands of their masters, the real culprits.
In other words, hardly anyone believes that the CBI is usually able to get its hands on the real culprits when they happen to be ministers and their top bureaucratic accomplices.
That failure has given the corrupt and the corruptible a free run of the ministerial and top bureaucratic offices, while keeping the public “comforted” with raids, prosecutions and convictions involving junior officials.
That failure to nab the real culprits also explains why eye-popping amounts of public money are siphoned off, but very little is recovered, giving the corrupt an incentive for more malfeasance, not to mention the reinforcement of the essentially top-down nature of corruption in India.

Current anti-corruption systemsAn examination of our current systems of curbing and preventing corruption reveal why they have failed us.
The anti-corruption system at the central level consists of four agencies: the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the departmental vigilance, the CBI, and the police.
While the CVC and the departmental vigilance deal with the “vigilance” aspects of an alleged case of corruption which usually translates into disciplinary proceedings against a public servant, the CBI and the police deal with criminal aspects of corruption cases.
Another categorization of these four agencies can be done on the basis of the hierarchical level at which corruption is reported. While the CVC and CBI deal with corruption at higher levels of the government, departmental vigilance and the police usually check corruption at lower levels.

Central Vigilance CommissionThe CVC, which is described as the “apex body” for “vigilance” over all departments of the central government, only has advisory powers. The government departments seek the advice of the CVC on various cases of corruption, but are free to accept or reject such an advice.
The advisory nature of the CVC’s role does not change in cases that the commission directly enquires into.
Experience shows that the advice of the CVC to initiate prosecution is rarely accepted and the recommendation for a major penalty is usually turned into a minor penalty.
Except for examining civil works of the government agencies, the CVC has no investigative power of its own and no power to register a criminal case; it deals only with vigilance or disciplinary matters.
The CVC has no power over politicians or the elected public servants. If there is an involvement of a politician in a case, the CVC can at best bring it to the notice of the government.
This false distinction between “political corruption” and “bureaucratic corruption” has had the effect of killing a case even before investigation can begin, strengthening the hands of the corrupt.
Though the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, gives the CVC supervisory powers over the CBI, the former can neither direct the latter to proceed in a case in a particular manner or to ask for a case file.
The CVC does not have any direct power over vigilance wings of various departments of the central government.
The complaints of corruption forwarded by the CVC to a departmental vigilance wing are often ignored by the latter. The CVC is then left with sending reminders to the vigilance wings, which too are not heeded.
The CVC has no administrative control over officials in the vigilance wings of various departments to which it forwards complaints.
The government merely consults the CVC in making appointments of the chief vigilance officers (CVOs) of various departments. The departments themselves appoint or transfer the officials below CVOs; only in rare cases, they allow themselves to be influenced by the CVC in matters of such appointments or transfers.
The ruling party or coalition is in full control of the selection of central vigilance commissioners because it is represented by two (the prime minister and the home minister) of the three members that make up the selection committee.
All names put before the committee (whose third member is the leader of the opposition) are strictly decided by the government. The citizens have no information to make sense of the process or rationale of the appointments, let alone any form of participation in decision making.
To make matters worse, the CVC does not have adequate resources to deal with the large number of complaints that it receives relating to over 1500 central government departments and ministries, some of them as big as Central Excise, Railways, and Income Tax.
Its staff of about 200 is grossly inadequate to deal with even the few cases that it enquires into on its own without being dependent on departmental vigilance.
Therefore, despite being relatively independent in its functioning, the CVC has neither the powers nor the resources to look into and take action on complaints in a manner that will be widely acknowledged as an effective deterrence against corruption.

Central Bureau of InvestigationThe CBI, on the other hand, has the power to investigate any case related to a central government department or any case referred to it by a state government or a court, but no independence. It is directly under the administrative control of the central government, namely the department of personnel and training (DoPT) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
There is very little public trust in the ability of the CBI to conduct a fair investigation into complaints against a minister or politician who is part of the ruling party/coalition or a bureaucrat who enjoys the protection of such a minister or politician. Such investigations are widely expected to be scuttled in their initial stages or midway unless they are pursued under the supervision of the Supreme Court a la the 2G scam case.
Since it is directly under the control of the central government, the CBI is widely perceived to have been used by the ruling parties or coalitions to settle a score with their political foes.
The CBI is also overburdened and does not accept cases even where the amount of misappropriated money is estimated to be as high as Rs one crore.

Departmental vigilance
The less said about departmental vigilance the better.
Each department has a vigilance wing, which is usually staffed by officials from the same department. In a few cases, an outsider is appointed as the chief vigilance officer (CVO), but officials under him belong to the same department.
Since the staff of a vigilance wing are drawn from the department that it supervises and can be posted anytime to any position in the same department, it is well-nigh impossible for them to be independent, even if they muster up the courage, in looking into complaints against their colleagues.
Would a vigilance officer enquire into a complaint against a senior officer, if he/she knew that he/she might get posted under the same senior officer in future?
In some departments, especially within the ministries, some officials double up as vigilance officials. That may lead to the ridiculous situation of officers in receipt of complaints against themselves.
There have been instances of the officials with long records of corrupt behavior posted in departmental vigilance wings. Such officials use their vigilance postings to systematically undermine all cases against themselves. They also turn their vigilance wing into a hub of corruption, where cases are closed for consideration.
Departmental vigilance does not investigate into criminal aspects of any case. It does not have the powers to register an FIR. Needless to say, the departmental vigilance officials are totally helpless in cases where politicians are the main culprits.

The policeThe police are another effete anti-corruption agency. Most people do not even know that they can take their complaint against corruption to the police. Those who do and have the courage to go to the police face problems in getting their FIR registered.
In most cases, the corrupt are in a position to use their contacts to scare the police into submission. For example, if a local MP or MLA is the reason behind a complaint, the police are not likely to do anything.

Hence Lokpal
The four agencies described above have failed severally and jointly to curb corruption in public service in an effective manner. Their actions have failed to punish the corrupt and be the deterrent against further malfeasance.
It’s obvious that multiplicity of anti-corruption agencies serves no useful purpose. On the contrary, multiplicity of agencies leads to confusion and wastage of time, effort and resources, which only make it less likely that the corrupt will be brought to justice.
For example, the Commonwealth Games scam has been investigated by the CVC, the CBI, as well as the specially set up Shunglu Committee, even as the first two agencies are much in demand due to many other scams getting exposed left, right and centre.
In sum, neither ordinary citizens have a forum to register their complaint against an instance of corruption that affects their day-to-day lives, nor is there any effective remedy and deterrence against ‘high-level’ corruption of much bigger and more systemic proportions, such as in public procurement contracts and distribution of mining leases.
As for the protection of the courageous few who report corruption, there is none.
In the year 2010 alone, at least eight RTI activists were killed while they sought information on the shady deals of some public servants. In earlier years, Manjunath Shanmugam and Satyendra Dubey bravely blew the whistle on governmental corruption, only to lose their lives without receiving any protection from any governmental agency.
The Lokpal commission has been conceived and devised precisely to address this hopeless and helpless situation – i.e. remedying the inadequacies of the current system in a manner that is comprehensive enough to provide real hope and help to the oppressed citizens.

Lokpal will not be a ‘super-government’
Lokpal will merely recast the relevant functions of multiple anti-corruption agencies into a single agency without becoming a ‘super-cop’ or a ‘super-government’ or concentrating too many powers into itself as is feared by many people who may never have had the opportunity to be explained the Jan Lokpal Bill.
In other words the anti-corruption wing of the CBI, the CVC, and departmental vigilance will be merged into Lokpal, doing away with multiple anti-corruption agencies in favour of a single agency with all the necessary powers.
The Jan Lokpal Bill will not create an institution that can be described by any stretch of imagination as “cop-cum-prosecutor-cum-inquisitor-cum-judge” as some commentators have apprehended.
Nor will it create an institution that will impinge on the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers of the State or the Constitutional arrangement of checks and balances.
Lokpal will only have the powers of investigation and prosecution of cases that will be made out of complaints against alleged ‘corruption,’ as strictly defined in existing statutes.
With regard to politicians, the Lokpal commission will look into complaints under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
As for the complaints against the judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, only a full bench (with at least seven members) of the Lokpal commission will be able to authorise a full-fledged investigation after satisfying itself that prima facie evidence of an offence exists under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether or not to initiate prosecution against a judge will also be decided by a full bench of the commission with majority of members with legal background.
In case of bureaucrats, the commission will look into complaints registered under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as the ones reporting misconduct. In addition, the departmental vigilance wings, which will incorporated into the Lokpal commission, will redress the grievances reported by the citizens.
All cases of corruption will be tried in the special courts set up under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All orders of the Lokpal, such as in respect of confiscation of property, can be appealed against to the appropriate high court.

Lokpal will be accountable to the citizens
In addition to being subject to the Right to Information Act, 2005, Lokpal will be required by specific provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill to disclose all information about its functioning to the citizens, ensuring that the commission will remain open to public scrutiny.
Moreover, the Jan Lokpal Bill provides for the scenario of one or more members of the Lokpal commission themselves turning corrupt; any citizen will be able to bring a complaint of corruption or misconduct against one or more members of Lokpal to the Supreme Court and seek their removal.
It’s far fetched to imagine that making Lokpal an effective deterrent against corruption will create something resembling a police state, another apprehension of some commentators.
On the contrary, an effective Lokpal will only help to rescue the country from the prevailing situation of widespread abuse of public office, thus upholding the rule of law and the right of the ordinary citizens to hold their government to account.
It needs to be borne in mind that any power that Lokpal exercises duly or unduly will be under the scrutiny of the citizens as well as the Parliament which will pass the bill to create the institution and will always be in a position to make amendments to the same legislation.

Search This Blog

About Me

Delhi-based journalist, having worked for a business magazine and a news agency.
Also worked as a researcher on local democracy and right to information for an NGO.
Having left my latest employment at a magazine on governance, where I contributed to ideation and wrote on public policy from the perspective of common citizens, in September 2010, I am currently engaged in freelancing.
At the NGO, I participated in a rare experiment in bringing face to face the people and their representatives and officials in the municipal bodies. At the business magazine, I wrote on finance, economy, business, education, healthcare, etc. At the news agency, my longest employer so far, I worked on the business and economy desk, but also did some news reporting and writing. I believe we Indians are going through a very slow but sure democratic awakening, which is due to greater flow of information. We must sustain this process of awakening and help each other out of ignorance. This ignorance enslaves us to the elite that currently handles the levers of power.